Friday, July 14, 2017

TOLERATING THE INTOLERANT: The Tipping Point of Multiculturalism

by LINDA GOUDSMIT

The good smith below makes some good points but it is pointless to argue for tolerance as such. People will always find exceptions to such simple rules. In the end you have to argue for particular things to be tolerated or not tolerated. You have to argue each case on its individual merits, not as an example of a generally applicable rule -- JR

The United States of America was founded upon the democratic principles of freedom, equality, justice, and upward mobility - the opportunity to assert power over oneself and determine one's own destiny. "Only in America" describes the wonder of upward mobility where success is determined by the individual not by the State. Unlike its English predecessor, American democracy guaranteed that in America it was not necessary to be born into wealth or born into the ruling aristocracy to achieve financial success or political power. The United States guarantees religious freedom to its citizens and further guarantees the separation of Church and State.

The United States of America is the greatest experiment in individual freedom ever created anywhere in the world. It has existed as the dream and beacon for freedom of oppressed people everywhere seeking refuge and safety from the tyranny of their own despotic governments. Since its inception the United States has welcomed freedom lovers who assimilate and embrace the United States Constitution, laws, traditions, and cultural norms through the process of legal immigration. We have been enriched by the contributions of legal immigrants in science, art, literature, music, medicine and every other sphere of American life. The combination of upward mobility and individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and incentivized by the opportunity for success produced the most powerful nation on Earth.

The history of immigration in America is the story of immigrants seeking refuge through legal immigration into the United States who assimilate and become part of the American dream - until now. America is currently under siege by immigrants with hostile cultural norms hoping to change American life rather than assimilate into it. Islam is on the march and hijrah, immigration jihad, is part of the plan.

Islam was not an issue for America in the time of President Thomas Jefferson. Islam was not an issue for America in the time of President Harry Truman. Islam is an issue for America now in the time of President Donald Trump because former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush rebranded Islam as a religion of peace.lam is not a religion of peace like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Islam is a unified socio-political system with a militarized wing, an educational wing, a religious wing, and enormous oil wealth. Islam is governed exclusively by religious sharia law. There is no separation of Church and State in Islam. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is the transformation of the world into an Islamic caliphate ruled by religious sharia law. Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. Islam is intolerant and recognizes sharia law exclusively. Islam is a supremacist socio-political movement seeking world dominion not a religion of peace. Islam is a threat to American democracy.

Historically the multiple cultures and people of the world were separated by physical and/or national boundaries. Wars were fought and boundaries changed but cultures and people with shared values shared their space. Immigration challenges societies with multiculturalism because immigration imports people with values and cultural norms unlike the host country. As long as the differences in cultural norms and values are secondary like foods, dress, holiday celebrations multiculturalism works. The difficulty arises when cultures with primary conflicting cultural norms and values attempt to occupy the same space in a country.

A society's primary values and cultural norms are reflected in definitions of mental health and mental illness specific to that culture. The definitions identify what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior and those values and norms are codified into laws that govern that society. Muslim societies governed by sharia law revere a father murdering his disobedient daughter as an "honor" killing. In Western society governed by secular Constitutional law a father murdering his disobedient daughter is an intolerable criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or death. Murdering an infidel, an apostate, a homosexual, or a disobedient wife are endorsed and rewarded by Islam. In Western societies all four are intolerable criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment or death.

The left-wing liberal apologists for Islam deny that irreconcilable differences exist among cultures and they are trying to persuade America that Islam, a supremacist socio-political movement is not a threat to democracy. The Leftists, using their politically correct moral relativism to justify tolerating the intolerable in America have reached the tipping point of multiculturalism by redefining treason as mental illness. Rebranding the threat does not make it any less threatening.

When definitions of mental health shift to accommodate political correctness and moral relativity society is pressured to tolerate the intolerable which threatens existing social norms and the laws that reflect them. In this circumstance mental health becomes politicized and can be used to defend the indefensible. When North Carolina psychologist tried to assert that an American jihadi was mentally ill the question becomes, "Mentally ill by whose standards?" The jihadi is considered a hero in Islam and a criminal in America. Western men and women who reject their Western cultural norms and embrace Islam and sharia law cannot be considered mentally ill if they embrace Islam. Their choices have consequences. They may renounce their Western cultural norms but must still be judged by them.

Apologists for Islam have curtailed their indefensible defense of Islam as a religion of peace and have launched a new campaign to present Islamic jihadi recruits as mentally ill. This new strategy was applied recently to defend jihadist Justin Sullivan in North Carolina. Reported by JihadWatch on June 28, 2017:

"Sison, a veteran federal public defender from Asheville, called one witness-a Durham psychologist who testified that Sullivan suffers from psychological problems that could spiral into full-fledged schizophrenia if does not receive adequate prison treatment or is housed with hardened inmates. Under questioning by Savage, Dr. Jim Hilkey said that during his 15 visits with Sullivan, his patient remained ardent in his Islamic beliefs and had not expressed remorse."

Cultural relativity whether accepted as normative or defined as mental illness is problematic because both create social chaos.

Consider a society of cannibals for whom eating human flesh is normative. If an American travels to parts of tropical Africa where cannibalism is the cultural norm or learns of cannibalism on the Internet and decides to cannibalize his neighbor should he be considered mentally ill and absolved of his crime? Should he be free to cannibalize people because he has embraced cannibalism and it is normative in tropical Africa? The problem with cultural relativity is that it only works in subjective reality. In the real world of objective reality cannibals cannot be tolerated in non-cannibal societies because accepting the hostile norms of the cannibals is an existential threat to the non-cannibals.

Perhaps the Leftists will defend cannibalism on the grounds of moral relativity or cultural relativity. Perhaps they will set up cannibal courts and establish a two-tier system of justice one for cannibals and one for non-cannibals.

Cultural and religious freedom guarantees cultural and religious tolerance but when tolerating the intolerable become an existential threat to society the tipping point of multiculturalism has been reached. Cultural relativity that posits all cultures are equal in value is diametrically opposed to civilized society, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Religious freedom does not require American society to import or support those who wish to transform American social norms rather than assimilate into American society.

There must be limits of tolerance in a tolerant society because tolerating the intolerable is the tipping point of multiculturalism. It is cultural suicide to tolerate the intolerable.

In the aftermath of the street violence that marred the G20 summit in Hamburg, debate has flared here over the left-wing extremist issue in Germany, with calls to shut down leftist cultural centers and establish a E.U.-wide database of left-wing extremists.

Among the tens of thousands of mostly peaceful demonstrators, extreme left-wing protesters looted shops, set cars and barricades on fire and clashed with police officers, resulting in an estimated 500 police officers and 200 protesters being injured.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the rioters were not G20 opponents but “despicable violent extremists, just like neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists.”

“The brutality with which extremely violent anarchists have proceeded in Hamburg since Thursday is unfathomable and scandalous,” he told reporters, adding that “even more violent outbreaks of violence” may occur in the future.

Police arrested 186 people, and 51 currently face charges for breaching the peace, causing grievous bodily harm, damaging property and resisting police. They include Germans as well as citizens of France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland and Austria.

After a meeting of the CDU presidency in Berlin, party general secretary Peter Tauber said it was “high time that all parties are positioned against the left-wing extremism.”

But Dietmar Bartsch, a leading candidate of The Left party in upcoming general elections, said the rioters “had nothing to do with being left-wing whatsoever.”

“The Left party stands for justice and solidarity,” he told the ARD public broadcaster.

Martin Schulz, leader of the center-left Social Democrat party (SPD), said there was no political legitimacy for the rioters’ actions. Reuters quoted him as saying their actions “had the characteristics of terrorism.”

Hamburg is known for its large left-wing scene. Police estimate that almost 1,100 left-wing extremists live in the city of 1.7 million people, and that more than half of them are potentially violent.

The G20 violence has led to fears that leaving the left-wing groups unchecked could lead to further problems.

“If a democratically fortified country like Germany is no longer able to invite international guests and organize conferences like these, then there is more danger than just a single conference,” German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a visit to the city after the summit.

The concerns have stirred debate about long standing “autonomous centers” across Germany – places like the Rote Flora in Hamburg or the Rigaer Straße in Berlin, formerly abandoned buildings taken over by squatters who turn them into “cultural” centers and left-wing political meeting points.

They have been largely tolerated by cities’ municipalities, due to the mostly benign cultural and community activities held there. But the Rote Flora in particular now faces criticism for organizing the “Welcome to Hell” demonstration that kicked off the violence during the G20.

CDU lawmaker Stephan Mayer was quoted as calling for the forcible eviction of the inhabitants of the Rote Flora, while Federal Interior Ministry permanent secretary Günter Krings said Hamburg must “dry out the swamps” in those parts of the city where “lawlessness and contempt for the state prevail.”

Alice Weidel, lead candidate for the far right Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party, went further, describing the centers as “terror cells.”

“Extreme-left anti-fascist groups, who are involved in the organization of criminal actions like in Hamburg, must be banned,” she said.

The events have also led to calls for a database to track left-wing extremists. SPD lawmaker Eva Högl called for a European-wide extremist database. Currently, only Islamist radicals and right-wing extremists are tracked at the federal level.

Högl’s view, expressed to the Rheinische Post newspaper, was supported by Justice Minister Heiko Maas, also a SPD member, who agreed with the idea of a left-wing extremist database.

He told the Bild newspaper that the violence at the G20 summit made it clear that “we do not have a sufficient database of the extremist scene in Europe.”

Countries should exchange data about those convicted of violent acts, Maas said, as many of the rioters in Hamburg had travelled there from other European countries.

Daniel Koehler from the German Institute on Radicalization and De-radicalization Studies said there were similarities between extremists – regardless of political end of the spectrum.

“They talk a lot about justice. They talk a lot about freedom,” he told NPR. “They want to change the society into a positive direction. They believe that they’re doing something good for humanity.”

However, he said, their actions can turn violent in a desperate, though misguided, step to achieve that goal, particularly when they don’t feel “part of a society.”

In its latest report on the defense of the country's constitution, the Interior Ministry estimated that in 2016, the number of violent left-wing extremists in the country increased by ten percent – to 28,500, of whom 8,500 were considered violent.

Europol’s most recent E.U. terrorism report noted a “sharp increase” in left-wing and anarchist terrorist attacks from 2015 to 2016, although it also determined that the “operational capabilities of the groups remained low.”

With clampdowns on Islamists and xenophobes, free speech online is under threat.

German police raided the homes of 60 people earlier this month. Had the police uncovered terror plots, or perhaps foiled a drugs gang? No. They raided the homes of people accused of publishing hateful posts on social media. This is fast becoming the norm in Germany, where under the ‘incitement of the people’ law 812 arrests were made between 2013 and 2016. In one case, a 62-year-old shop assistant from Berlin was convicted for sharing an anti-migrant Facebook post. The post consisted of a fictitious conversation, in which the question ‘Do you have anything against immigrants?’ is answered with: ‘Yes, a gun and hand grenades.’ She was fined €1,350.

This is madness. But it is a madness that is spreading across Europe. And don’t be fooled into thinking we are not already in a similar situation in the UK. Over the past five years, 2,500 Londoners have been arrested for sending offensive messages over social media. Following the Finsbury Park Mosque attack, Richard Evans (whose father owns the van-hire company which the alleged attacker used), was arrested for allegedly posting on Facebook, ‘shame they don’t hire out steam rollers or tanks could have done a tidy job then’. Hateful and offensive? Of course. But should we really be imprisoning people for posting something that they would probably say down the pub anyway?

This censorship isn’t limited to Islamophobic or anti-migrant speech. For some reason European authorities have decided to take the fight against Islamist extremism to the internet, too. UK prime minister Theresa May and French president Emmanuel Macron recently announced joint plans for tackling extremist content online. They want to fine companies like Google and Facebook when they do not take steps to remove extremist content.

At a joint press conference, May said the UK was already working with internet companies ‘to stop the spread of extremist material that is warping young minds’, but that those firms must do more, and ‘abide by their social responsibility to step up their efforts to remove harmful content’. The EU is now threatening to introduce similar legislation. And the German Bundestag has already passed legislation that would fine internet companies up to €50million if they fail to remove ‘unlawful content’ within 24 hours.

Thankfully, the dangerous implications of curtailing internet freedom have not gone unnoticed. Max Hill QC, the UK counterterrorism legislation watchdog, has accused May of acting like a Chinese dictator. He told a conference: ‘I struggle to see how it would help if our parliament were to criminalise tech company bosses who “don’t do enough”. How do we measure “enough”? What is the appropriate sanction? We do not live in China, where the internet simply goes dark for millions when government so decides. Our democratic society cannot be treated that way.’

European leaders are deluding themselves if they think censorship will have any impact on terrorism, or any other hateful creed for that matter. Even on a practical level, regulation is pointless. Let’s say Facebook shuts down extremist accounts whenever it is alerted to their existence. It would take just minutes for that account holder to set up a new profile with a new name. Both Facebook and YouTube have more than one billion users, and on YouTube over 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute. You can introduce as many regulations as you like, but staying on top of all that internet content is an impossible task.

More crucially, removing offensive content, whether it be anti-migrant or pro-ISIS, won’t make those views disappear. It simply pushes the problem on to the Dark Web, where bigots can sound off uncontested and would-be terrorists can operate out of view.

In the UK we have suffered blow after blow these past few months, as terrorists have attacked us in Manchester and London. And, in the aftermath of each attack, politicians have blamed the internet and threatened greater online censorship. This seems to be their solution to both Islamist terror and the Islamophobic backlash they always presume will follow each attack. But the internet is just easy target: clamping down on online speech simply allows politicians to look like they are doing something.

That European leaders think the solution to ideas you detest is to censor them is deeply concerning. But this illiberal response is particularly misguided in relation to Islamist terrorism. In Theresa May’s speech after the London Bridge attack, she spoke of defending Western values. And yet, in the next breath, she laid out her plans to ‘regulate cyberspace’. Jihadism is a real threat to our freedom, in the most physical, brutal sense. But these political responses are a threat to our freedom, too. Giving government the power to censor extreme speech puts the liberty of everyone at risk.

If our leaders are serious about protecting Western values, then they should call off this European-wide war on freedom.

She was given great privilege and opportunity in Australia but, in the Muslim way, she has shown no gratitude for that. Instead she slimed Australia's war-dead. Many individual Australians criticized her for that but there was no official comment about her or action against her. Had she mocked something seen as holy in a Muslim country she would now be dead

Avi Yemini is incensed by the 26-year-old former ABC presenter's claims that she has been silenced, despite been given media platforms to air her views.

'We're sick of it. Please, if you're going to open your mouth it had better be for that apology you owe us. You owe the entire Australia,' he told his 79,454 Facebook followers. 'You betrayed us.'

'Didn't you leave, Yassmin? You're not the victim here. You were given more than 99 per cent of Australians and all you do is play the victim card. All you do is complain.

'Every chance you get, you put down our country and then you wonder why Australians are outraged by your comment.'

The conservative activist has even offered to take Ms Abdel-Magied to the airport as she prepares to leave Australia for London.

'In case her problem is transport, I'm officially offering Yassmin Abdel-Magied a ride to the airport,' he said. 'If it ensures you leave sooner.'

Yassmin Abdel-Magied says she feels betrayed by Australia and is 'exhausted' after a series of highly-publicised controversies

Mr Yemini also offered to help Ms Abdel-Magied draft an apology.

'Start like this: 'I'm Yassmin Abdel-Magied. I've got everything in this world. I love my religion, Islam. We're not all perfect',' he said.

"But I am sorry for betraying the Australian people. I am sorry. And I hope one day they find the room in their heart to forgive me for my disgraceful and despicable actions.' Maybe then, we'll be willing to listen to you again.'

Following a series of controversies, Yassmin Abdel-Magied declared Australia had stripped her of her free speech, even though she was the host of ABC program Australia Wide, appeared on Q&A and last year went on an $11,000 taxpayer-funded trip to the Middle East.

'I feel a little bit betrayed by Australia, because it's my country and these are my country people and it's my home,' she told Buzzfeed UK. 'And to sort of fight for your right to exist in your home country, it's exhausting. 'Where do you go that's safe if not your home?'

The polarising figure, who recently labelled herself 'the most publicly hated Muslim' in the country, said she felt Australians were only accepting of those who 'toe the line'.

She spoke of her fiery discussion about Sharia law with Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie on Q&A in February, when she claimed that Islam is the 'most feminist religion'.

'I had toed the line for 10 years in the public eye… and for some reason I decided that at that point that if I didn't say anything, who would?' she said.

'If me as a young brown Muslim woman sitting there next to the politician, wasn't going to say to the politician, "hey, check yourself," who was going to do it on my behalf?'

Ms Abdel-Magied added: 'Freedom of speech doesn't really apply to the truth. For me that was my truth, but I wasn't really allowed to say it and people were very upset, so it's taught me a lot.'

Meanwhile, the former ABC presenter revealed last week she was 'deeply and personally' affected by the Anzac Day post controversy. She sparked uproar in April with a Facebook message which read: 'Lest. We. Forget. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine).'

It triggered a social media firestorm, with her comments widely condemned as 'disrespectful' and 'despicable'.

'Given that I am now the most publicly hated Muslim in Australia, people have been asking me how I am,' Ms Abdel-Magied wrote for The Guardian last week.

'What do I say? That life has been great and I can't wait to start my new adventure in London? ... Or do I tell them that it's been thoroughly rubbish?

'That it is humiliating to have almost 90,000 twisted words written about me in the three months since Anzac Day, words that are largely laced with hate.'

She quickly deleted her Anzac Day post and said: 'It was brought to my attention that my last post was disrespectful, and for that, I apologise unreservedly.'

Ms Abdel-Magied announced on Monday she was leaving Australia and moving to London as part of the 'Aussie rite of passage'.

The announcement divided users on social media, with one man unable to hide his delight at her decision. 'Best news of 2017! Be sure to insult the Queen and the royal family whilst you're there as well,' he said.

But one woman was more supportive: 'Good on you, Yassmin. Go where the work and inspiration takes you,' she said.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

A face of Leftist hate: Cory Booker, (D-NJ)

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

'White Privilege'. .. Oh yes. .. That was abundant in the Irish potato famines. ... And in the Scottish Highland Clearances. ...And in transportations to Australia. ... And in Workhouses. ... 'White privilege' was absolutely RIFE!

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties. The tide turned in 2017, however, with a public vote authorizing homosexual marriage in Australia

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here